RAM JANKI HANUMAN MANDIR Vs. BHARAT KUMAR PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 9.1.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.10/2012, filed by the respondent No.1, on the grounds that material facts were concealed by the respondent No.1 with respect to filing of a revision against the order of the Registrar Public Trust and the order passed by this Court in the First Appeal filed by the respondent No.1. It is contended that if such findings are looked into, it would be clear that the claim made by the respondent No.1 in the aforesaid writ petition was totally misconceived. It is contended that in fact an offence was committed by the respondent No.1 by filing such a writ petition and, therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Per contra it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that there was no suppression of material facts. The documents as required to be shown to this Court were filed along with the writ petition. The fact was pointed out that the order passed by the Registrar Public Trust was not in consonance to the order passed by the Reference Court with respect to the appointment of the Trustee and only this much is directed by this Court to conduct an enquiry and to see whether the persons so appointed are the local residents of the two villages i.e. Kaladumar and Puraina or not. In case it is found that they are the local residents of aforesaid two villages, their nomination as 'Panch' in the Public Trust would not be interfered with, but in case it is found that they are not the local residents, by no stretch of imagination, could it be said that the order passed by the Registrar Public Trust would be in consonance to the order passed by the Reference Court . Thus, it is contended that there is no scope for invoking the power by this Court to review the order passed in the writ petition of the respondent No.1.

(3.) It appears that there are dispute with respect to the Trust property and that being so, the Trustee and the respondent No.1 are at logger heads. However, it would have been better for the petitioner to take part in such an enquiry and to prove that the nomination made by the Registrar Public Trust is in accordance to the order passed by the Reference Court. Instead of doing this, the entire thrust is placed as if an order has been obtained from this Court by giving wrong information or misleading this Court by the respondent No.1. May be that the respondent No.1 has filed a revision before the revenue authorities against the order of the Registrar Public Trust, but it is also clear that under the M.P. Public Trust Act, there is no provision of filing of such appeal or revision against the order of the Registrar Public Trust. No suit could be filed in that respect as is specifically prohibited. The only remedy available was to file a writ petition. If the respondent No.1 under the misguided advice approached the Revenue Court by filing a revision, it cannot be said that such a remedy was available, was resorted to and, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. Further this Court in the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 has affirmed the order passed by the Reference Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. While affirming that order, this Court has categorically recorded the finding with respect to the provisions of the M.P. Public Trust Act. The order of Reference Court is modified only to the extent that the possession of the trust property will be delivered to the duly constituted governing body of the Trust. This will not mean that the constitution of the governing body or the Trustee of the Public Trust were affirmed by the Court. Secondly, the Reference Court has specifically ordered in paragraph 15 of its order passed in M.J.C.No.57/2004 on 6.7.2010 and has categorically directed that two persons of the Villages Kaladumar and Puraina where the Trust property is situated, are to be made Trustee. If they are to be made the Trustee, the Registrar Public Trust was required to verify the residence of those two who are to be nominated by him. It appears that this was not done and only because one of the person who was said to be Ex-President of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Jabalpur, was nominated as a Trustee. This particular aspect is examined by this Court and only this much has been directed to conduct an enquiry with respect to the residence of that person and if, it is found that he is the local resident of Village Kaladumar or Puraina, his nomination as a 'Panch' would not be interfered with. In case it is found that he is not the local resident of the said villages, his nomination is to be cancelled and in his place some other respectable person of aforesaid two villages is to be nominated as 'Panch'. This being so, it is clear that there was no infirmity in passing the order by this Court.